5 ms·

As a scientist myself, grant proposals are an ideal use case for LLMs: - Massive time sink. Those of us at senior/PI levels devote a lot of time to grant writi

As a scientist myself, grant proposals are an ideal use case for LLMs: - Massive time sink. Those of us at senior/PI levels devote a lot of time to grant writing, often more than to actual research. - Not something that you really get much useful learning or enrichment from (apart from learning to write better grant proposals the next time). The part of brainstorming and structuring ideas is useful but you would mostly do it without grant writing anyway, all the actual writing and polishing (which is 95% of the time) isn't. Definitely not an efficient use of the amount of hours it takes. - I don't know specifically for NIH, but in my (non-US) context, grant proposals are full of formulaic sections that aren't really useful (Gantt chart, data management plan, etc.) When I'm in an evaluator role, I tend to outright skip many of them, not out of neglect or laziness but because they're just useless ritual fluff. - As a consequence of the above three points, most of us dislike or even hate this part of our work. - The meta for most funding agencies I know has long been to overhype and to use exaggeratedly positive language and takes. Exactly what LLMs are naturals at. - If you're a non-native English speaker and write grant requests in English (common in Europe), the LLM also helps you level the playing field with native speakers, which is quite a big deal. From a naive outside standpoint you might think that scientific grant evaluation is all about the actual ideas and CVs, but the truth is that in practice, ability to pitch your ideas better than other competitors in your call is key. - Honestly in the last grant I wrote, Gemini came up with some paragraphs that I consider to be clearly better than what I would have written by myself. Clear, concise, attractive to read, etc. It's just very good at writing. I'm better than it at the actual research, but at writing, let alone in English where I'm not a native? I don't have a chance. As a result of this... good luck convincing scientists not to use LLMs for this. I'm pretty sure that if you ask, you will find two types of scientists: those that tell you that they use LLMs for grant writing and those who are hypocrites and deny it. I wouldn't even trust a scientist who didn't use LLMs for this (unless it's out of some very deep quasireligious conviction): why waste your time? Don't you want to have more time to do actual science?

selfselfgo 1y ago
[dead]
jhrmnn 1y ago
> useless ritual fluff I believe that LLMs can be very useful to identify this stuff in our processes. The solution shouldn't be then to fill them with LLMs but strip them entirely away. I tend to think the same about everyone freaking out about LLM misuse in education.
- Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
  Of course, but identification has never been the problem. You don't need LLMs for that, you could just ask the scientists themselves and I'm sure over 90% of us would agree on the parts I mentioned being useless. The problem is the bureaucracy. And if it asks for useless fluff, I'm happy to feed it with LLMs.
  - cturner 1y ago
    I want to ask about the bureaucracy aspect. I have never written a science grant application, but expect that some of it comes about because the applications want to ensure good governance around the proposals. Do you agree? For the fluff that genuinely has no productive value, do you have any explanation for why it is there? Could LLM participation be blowing holes in good-governance measures that were only weakly effective, and therefore a good thing in the long-term? Could the rise in the practice drive grants arrangements to better governance?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - gotoeleven 1y ago
      https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/nih-ending-diversity-statements-grant-applications/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/nih-ending-dive... Crap like this
    - Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
      These are very good questions, and I only have vague answers because it's not easy to understand how bureaucratic systems come to be, grow and work (and not my speciality), but I'll try to do my best. Indeed, some of the fluff is due to the first reason - for example, the data management plan (where you need to specify how you're going to handle data) has good intentions: it's there so that you explain how you will make your data findable, interoperable, etc. which is a legitimately positive thing; as opposed to e.g. never releasing the research software you produce and making your results unreproducible. But the result is still fluff: I (well, Gemini and I) wrote one last week, it's 6 pages, and what it says can be said in 2-3 lines: that we use a few standard data formats, we will publish all papers on arXiv and/or our institutional repository, software on GitHub, data on GitHub or data repositories, and all the relevant URLs or handles will be linked from the papers. That's pretty much all, but of course you have to put it into a document with various sections and all sorts of unnecessary detail. Why? I suppose in part due to requirements of some disciplines "leaking" into others (I can imagine for people who work with medical data, it's important to specify in fine detail how they're going to handle the data. But not for my projects where I never touch sensitive data at all). And in part due to the trend of bureaucracies to grow - someone adds something, and then it's difficult to remove it because "hey, what if for some project it's relevant?", etc. Then there are things that are outright useless, like the Gantt chart. At least in my area (CS), you can't really Gantt chart what you're going to do in a 5-year project, because it's research. Any nontrivial research should be unexpected, so beyond the first year you don't know what you'll exactly be doing. Why is that there? I suppose it can be a mix of several factors: - Maybe again, spill from other disciplines: I suppose in some particular disciplines, a Gantt chart might be useful. Perhaps if you're a historian and you're going to spend one year at a given archive, another year at a second archive, etc... but in CS it's useless. - Scientists who end up at bureaucratic roles are those that don't actually like doing science that much, so they tend to focus on the fluff rather than on actual research. - Research is unpredictable but funding agencies want to believe they're funding something predictable. So they make you plan the project, and then write a final report on how everything turned just as planned (even if this requires contorting facts) to make them happy.
DonsDiscountGas 1y ago
These are good reasons to allow LLMs but the cap on 6 submissions doesn't seem so bad. If anything it ensures people focus on fewer quality submissions. And if that means less time spent writing proposals, so much the better.
- Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
  Of course, I agree with the cap. In fact, I'm surprised people could submit 40 proposals - in my country, most grant calls are capped to one proposal (since long before LLMs) and the same goes for most EU-wide calls I know. Even without LLMs, I wouldn't see the point of giving someone 40x the chances of funding just because they somehow found the time to write 40 proposals. My comment was more about the part that says "Aside from the cap, the policy makes clear that NIH will not consider AI-generated proposals to be the original work of applicants. “NIH will continue to employ the latest technology in detection of AI-generated content to identify AI generated applications,” the agency’s notice says. If AI use is detected after an award has been granted, NIH warns, the agency may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity while imposing penalties." I think it's just unrealistic to expect that scientists won't use LLMs for grant proposals. And detection doesn't even actually work without the risk of false positives (not that there are going to be actual false positives, because everyone is going to use LLMs for this so by definition you will only have true positives and false negatives, but it's still unfair if some scientists' proposals are flagged by an AI detector and others bypass it).
jakebennet89 1y ago
[dead]
poulpy123 1y ago
Using tools, LLM or not, to improve the language is one thing, but if a LLM is able to write a grant proposal for a research project that means the project is crap
- SecretDreams 1y ago
  You've just, correctly, identified probably most research proposals in the current era. They're mostly* recycled crap. But that doesn't mean they should get funded. We just need to also recognize modern research (at universities, at least) is mostly about training HQP.
  - SecretDreams 1y ago
    Shouldn't**
- seydor 1y ago
  It's true though. You need an idea that sounds sexy and a lot of hyperbole about the impact of your research, in particular with EU funds. Applications generally MUST overhype their impact , because there is a lot of competition , often because the guidelines encourage it, and because there is no restriction on making unrealistic claims. The application, the interview, the pitching, the networking, it all matters. And over the years EU funding by the ERC has adopted the processes of tech startups and VCs (pitching etc). So whatever works with hustling entrepreneurs works with researchers.
- Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
  I would never use them to write a proposal from scratch (as in "write a grant proposal to submit to call X on topic Y"), but they can very effectively turn informally-written lists of bullet points with (human-generated) ideas into well-structured sections of flawless, effective text describing the ideas in detail. As well as iterate on the text (make this section longer, shorter, add idea X, emphasize aspect Y more, etc.), suggest risks and contingency plans, make a Gantt chart, etc. All this represents the overwhelming majority of the work (in terms of hours) in writing a grant proposal.

selfselfgo 1y ago

[dead]

jhrmnn 1y ago

> useless ritual fluff I believe that LLMs can be very useful to identify this stuff in our processes. The solution shouldn't be then to fill them with LLMs but strip them entirely away. I tend to think the same about everyone freaking out about LLM misuse in education.

Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
Of course, but identification has never been the problem. You don't need LLMs for that, you could just ask the scientists themselves and I'm sure over 90% of us would agree on the parts I mentioned being useless. The problem is the bureaucracy. And if it asks for useless fluff, I'm happy to feed it with LLMs.
- cturner 1y ago
  I want to ask about the bureaucracy aspect. I have never written a science grant application, but expect that some of it comes about because the applications want to ensure good governance around the proposals. Do you agree? For the fluff that genuinely has no productive value, do you have any explanation for why it is there? Could LLM participation be blowing holes in good-governance measures that were only weakly effective, and therefore a good thing in the long-term? Could the rise in the practice drive grants arrangements to better governance?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - gotoeleven 1y ago
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/nih-ending-diversity-statements-grant-applications/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/nih-ending-dive... Crap like this
  - Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
    These are very good questions, and I only have vague answers because it's not easy to understand how bureaucratic systems come to be, grow and work (and not my speciality), but I'll try to do my best. Indeed, some of the fluff is due to the first reason - for example, the data management plan (where you need to specify how you're going to handle data) has good intentions: it's there so that you explain how you will make your data findable, interoperable, etc. which is a legitimately positive thing; as opposed to e.g. never releasing the research software you produce and making your results unreproducible. But the result is still fluff: I (well, Gemini and I) wrote one last week, it's 6 pages, and what it says can be said in 2-3 lines: that we use a few standard data formats, we will publish all papers on arXiv and/or our institutional repository, software on GitHub, data on GitHub or data repositories, and all the relevant URLs or handles will be linked from the papers. That's pretty much all, but of course you have to put it into a document with various sections and all sorts of unnecessary detail. Why? I suppose in part due to requirements of some disciplines "leaking" into others (I can imagine for people who work with medical data, it's important to specify in fine detail how they're going to handle the data. But not for my projects where I never touch sensitive data at all). And in part due to the trend of bureaucracies to grow - someone adds something, and then it's difficult to remove it because "hey, what if for some project it's relevant?", etc. Then there are things that are outright useless, like the Gantt chart. At least in my area (CS), you can't really Gantt chart what you're going to do in a 5-year project, because it's research. Any nontrivial research should be unexpected, so beyond the first year you don't know what you'll exactly be doing. Why is that there? I suppose it can be a mix of several factors: - Maybe again, spill from other disciplines: I suppose in some particular disciplines, a Gantt chart might be useful. Perhaps if you're a historian and you're going to spend one year at a given archive, another year at a second archive, etc... but in CS it's useless. - Scientists who end up at bureaucratic roles are those that don't actually like doing science that much, so they tend to focus on the fluff rather than on actual research. - Research is unpredictable but funding agencies want to believe they're funding something predictable. So they make you plan the project, and then write a final report on how everything turned just as planned (even if this requires contorting facts) to make them happy.

DonsDiscountGas 1y ago

These are good reasons to allow LLMs but the cap on 6 submissions doesn't seem so bad. If anything it ensures people focus on fewer quality submissions. And if that means less time spent writing proposals, so much the better.

Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
Of course, I agree with the cap. In fact, I'm surprised people could submit 40 proposals - in my country, most grant calls are capped to one proposal (since long before LLMs) and the same goes for most EU-wide calls I know. Even without LLMs, I wouldn't see the point of giving someone 40x the chances of funding just because they somehow found the time to write 40 proposals. My comment was more about the part that says "Aside from the cap, the policy makes clear that NIH will not consider AI-generated proposals to be the original work of applicants. “NIH will continue to employ the latest technology in detection of AI-generated content to identify AI generated applications,” the agency’s notice says. If AI use is detected after an award has been granted, NIH warns, the agency may refer the matter to the Office of Research Integrity while imposing penalties." I think it's just unrealistic to expect that scientists won't use LLMs for grant proposals. And detection doesn't even actually work without the risk of false positives (not that there are going to be actual false positives, because everyone is going to use LLMs for this so by definition you will only have true positives and false negatives, but it's still unfair if some scientists' proposals are flagged by an AI detector and others bypass it).

jakebennet89 1y ago

[dead]

poulpy123 1y ago

Using tools, LLM or not, to improve the language is one thing, but if a LLM is able to write a grant proposal for a research project that means the project is crap

SecretDreams 1y ago
You've just, correctly, identified probably most research proposals in the current era. They're mostly* recycled crap. But that doesn't mean they should get funded. We just need to also recognize modern research (at universities, at least) is mostly about training HQP.
- SecretDreams 1y ago
  Shouldn't**
seydor 1y ago
It's true though. You need an idea that sounds sexy and a lot of hyperbole about the impact of your research, in particular with EU funds. Applications generally MUST overhype their impact , because there is a lot of competition , often because the guidelines encourage it, and because there is no restriction on making unrealistic claims. The application, the interview, the pitching, the networking, it all matters. And over the years EU funding by the ERC has adopted the processes of tech startups and VCs (pitching etc). So whatever works with hustling entrepreneurs works with researchers.
Al-Khwarizmi 1y ago
I would never use them to write a proposal from scratch (as in "write a grant proposal to submit to call X on topic Y"), but they can very effectively turn informally-written lists of bullet points with (human-generated) ideas into well-structured sections of flawless, effective text describing the ideas in detail. As well as iterate on the text (make this section longer, shorter, add idea X, emphasize aspect Y more, etc.), suggest risks and contingency plans, make a Gantt chart, etc. All this represents the overwhelming majority of the work (in terms of hours) in writing a grant proposal.